|
I very much agree with Arthur that a major shift is
going on. What is interesting though is that it isn't clear what shape
that shift is/will take...
The shoot first, ask questions later reaction which
seemed to be the first one out of DC seems to have settled into something rather
more restrained and deliberate and perhaps most important, reflecting some
understanding that there is a world "out there"...
The fact that the US now recognizes a broad based
and non-specific vulnerability to that world is another part of the
puzzle.
That this is taking place in the midst of a global
economic downturn is a further element and the evident need for
"State/Keynesian" intervention is causing perturbations in the US economic
ideological clerisy.
That the attack is coming from the religious right
with the need to distinguish between the "fascist" Islamists and the moderate
(could we even say "liberal") Muslims is causing further
perturbations.
Where this is taking the US (and thus much of the
rest of the World) isn't yet clear, but there seems to be something (still small
but not insignificant) of a ground swell for "bombing them with
butter"...
MG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:47
PM
Subject: RE: A hypothetical exam essay
question
IMHO, Sept. 11 marks the beginning of the 21st
century. Like the Titanic or WW1 marked the real beginning of the 20th
century. Just as with a kaleidoscope the landscape has shifted.
Will it shift back. Unlikley. It will shift. but not back.
"Can't step in the same stream twice and all that...." Or maybe, can't
step in the same paradigm twice.....
arthur
Apologies to the list. It's not really
silly. It just seemed that way when I was in a cantankerous mood last
night. Its an interesting discussion.
When people say that "the world changed on
Sept. 11", what they are really saying is that the social and emotional (for
want of better terms) parameters which govern rational choices such as
responding to cheaper tickets have shifted. Uncertainty has moved
in. Choice has become less rational. What is interesting,
certainly from an airline perspective, is how long the shift might hold and
what the airlines and the government can do to minimize its impact.
Will the President flying on Air Force One and Bill Clinton taking several
trips across the country bring passengers back? Personally, I rather
doubt it.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001
10:38 PM
Subject: Re: A hypothetical exam
essay question
I repeat, this is all a bit silly. As
Arthur and I both pointed out, the demand for air transport has been
rendered totally inelastic by the events of September 11th. No
matter how cheap the fares, people are now reluctant to fly. It's
about making a dramatic, emotional gesture. Nothing is as
reassuring to perceptions of American economic might as seeing those big
silver birds up there, whether there are people in them or
not.
If there is an economic component to it,
it's probably more about the thousands of people who will lose, or have
lost, their jobs because people won't fly. Save the airlines and
save a pretty hefty chunk of the economy.
Ed Weick
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001
8:15 PM
Subject: Re: A hypothetical exam
essay question
A further contribution, from a
friend:
"All of your questions (except
the last one) imply a transfer of resources towards flying. Why
subsidize flyers? If we're going to tax and transfer there are a
lot of competing candidates! (as your last question implies -
counter-terrorism is one possible direction.) Of course, it might
be argued that flying is somehow essential and therefore 'something'
must be done to preserve the industry but Landsberg would argue that
nothing is the answer. If it is argued that Landsberg is
wrong, that private resources just cannot reallocate themselves fast
enough to keep planes in the air and that it is somehow critical
that planes be kept in the air then I would prefer your solution to
bailing out shareholders."
|
